Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
by tourists. legislation that we have before us strengthens an existing law, to restrict this practice known as hotel evasion. in 1981 the passage of the apartment conversion ordinance, which is second, 41-a of the administrative code made it illegal for residential propertis with four or more units to be occupied pore for less than 30 days. unfortunate le what we have found in recent years there has been a problem that has persisted due to enforcement challenges and a loophole in the law. in recent years we have seen many corporations sidestep this law by signing long-term loiss with property owner ises that their non-san franciscan employees can use the apartment as short-term corporate housing or tourism residential housing. so for example, as an example, in my district, the tenants at the large golden gateway [kph-efpl/] have experienced corporate employees and guests that come in and out of their buildings just like a hotel. based on rent board record there's are an estimate of dozens of these units that are leased by corporate entities. this not only creates quality of life issues for
. implementing the state redevelopment dissolution law. >> item 4, supervisor olague. aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos? aye. supervisor campos? no. president chiu? aye. supervisor chu aye. cohen aye. supervisor elsbernd? aye. supervisor kim? aye. supervisor mar? aye. there are 9 ayes and one no. >> the the ordinance is finally passed. item 5. >> item 5, ordinance appropriating $54 3.2 million from the proceed of sale of bonds for cap fail improvement projects to the airport commission for fiscal year 2012 through 2013 and placing appropriation and control is reserved pending the bond sale. >> roll call vote. >> on item 5, supervisor olague? aye. wiener? aye. supervisor avalos? aye. supervisor campos? aye. president chiu? aye. supervisor chu? aye. supervisor cohen? aye. supervisor elsbernd? aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? aye. there are 10 ayes. >> the item is passed. the ordinance is finally passed. item 6. >> item 6 is an ordinance amending the transportation code to restrict large vehicle parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. from the municipal transp
about changes to density. it doesn't talk about whether it's in-law units? you know, in terms of how the housing affordability and the crisis that we're facing, it's such a multi-faceted problem. that as i said before, unless we have some huge massive influx of federal dollars so we can just build enormous amounts of below market rate housing, public investment is not going to get us out the hole we're in. it's one piece of the puzzle and i will stop using that phrase. [ laughter ] because i have said it too many times already. i'm they are going to start creating a drinking game around it every time i say it. it's not even close to the whole solution and my concern is that this presents a distorted and miss leading picturet planning commission whether project x fits or doesn't fit into where we need to go to resolve our housing crisis. this is not comprehensive and i think we all know how this information presented in this specific way will be used. the information exists. the [phr-rplts/] puts planning department puts out reports and the budget analyst puts out reports. this is bei
. and any kind of density and fight the housing element. and oppose in-law units and all of the kind of things that we can be doing to have an impact on the market and not have the escalating rents and housing prices that we see in san francisco. so i think there is a larger picture of housing affordability in the city that is not captured by a dashboard on a given project saying this is how much, low, very low, moderate housing that we have created so far. that is a tiny, tiny piece of the picture and that is sort of where i'm coming from. >> thank you. so supervisor olague, shall we open this up for public comment? >> i just wanted to comment that no one says this is the end-all, be-all. we just think it's one aspect of the bigger, really issue around providing more affordability to residents of the city. and as most of us know, many of these projects are not -- as has been there kind of argument that the more we build, then the greater -- then all of a sudden it's going to create or lift the pressure from the housing market that suddenly if we build more housing, regardless
in the city and county of san francisco. that plan is mandated by state law and its purpose is to really figure out what the transportation needs for the city long-term are. and, so, i think it's important for us to begin the discussion of what those needs are, what the future looks like, and what the challenges in meeting the needs that the city has and will have, what those challenges will be. we need to think about this issue and specifically focus on ways in which we can bring revenue into the system, the kinds of investments that need to be made not only by the county transportation authority, but other agencies like the san francisco mta. i look forward to a substantive discussion. and again, this is the beginning of this discussion and we know that we will have additional discussions that will take place. i also want to note that because of the good work of our staff at the authority, we recently received some money on the planning front. we actually received half a million dollars from caltrans, a planning grant and it's a grant that will allow for work to be done in various neig
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)